Based on what they witnessed. Saying “Nuh uh” in response is not an argument. You need actual evidence to rebut their testimony.
Why do I "need" to rebut their opinions? They're free to have them. I'm just as free to have a different opinion. What I want to know is: What is the value of these opinions? I could appear and truthfully testify, under oath, that I have a different opinion. So far, you have not given one reason regarding the value of their opinions.
You can't find those dates because Trump put a hold on the aid the same day the DOD approved them. I don't know why you are hung up on this when it is clear the aid was held up and that Ukraine knew it. https://www.defense.gov/Newsroom/Releases/Release/Article/1879340/dod-announces-250m-to-ukraine/ JULY 18: The hold-up announcement In a secure call with national security officials, a staff member of the White House Office of Management and Budget announces there’s a freeze on Ukraine aid until further notice, based on a presidential order to the budget office. https://apnews.com/6925e54f66fc45c9939cd154c2c5ab93
Sondland…. Later, on September 7, President Trump informed Ambassador Sondland that he wanted President Zelensky—not the Prosecutor General—in a “public box” and demanded that the Ukrainian president personally announce the investigations to “clear things up.”
you are claiming the sworn testimony is wrong. You need to provide evidence to show its wrong. Saying “Nuh uh” isn’t an argument.
I've said it many times, but it seems that you have a problem comprehending. All of the witnesses testimony is based on secondhand hearsay and personal opinion.
That's not Sondland's words. Those are the words of the Democrats writing the report. Nice try though.
So, you haven't taken into consideration the words of Zelensky in which he stated publicly that he never felt pressured during the call and he was unaware of the aid being frozen until after the call? Now I see why you're confused.
Awesome. Now all you have to do is provide evidence the transcript of the call was altered, and that every single witness who testified was lying. “Nuh uh” isn’t an argument.
Well, the phone transcript shows trump committed a crime, and is corroborated by every single witness who testified. You’ve got quite a hurdle to overcome in proving the transcript, and all sworn testimony is false. Lol
No. I'm ridiculously intelligent and my reading comprehension, and my recall of what I've read are on par with my gargantuan intellect. Your posts do not reflect a background in this area, nor do they reflect the reality of what has taken place. This makes me think that you're just making up imaginary evidentiary standards and applying a warped version of the facts to those standards.
You can't be that intelligent because you have no evidence that Trump demanded anything from anybody.
....so your basically at the point in your argument where your last resort is 'I'm rubber and your glue, what ever you say, bounces off of me and sticks to you'?
